Confused Truther physics with regards to Aircraft & Building impacts.

a reply to: Korg Trinity

People have answered your questions, time for you to answer some.

After 15 years, can you give one theory and outline how it supersedes inward bowing leading to vertical columns failures.

Just name one to start. CD, Thermite, Nukes, Lasers, Dustification.

a reply to: Korg Trinity

Very simple question.

In your model, where is the breaking point for a 110 story building.

If the building gave way so the top 54 floors fell onto the next lower floor, the 56 remaining floors would stop the collapse?

originally posted by: neutronflux

You are dead wrong

So just to clarify.... You are refuting both the Law of conservation of energy and Newtons third Law of Motion.

Yes?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: neutronflux

People have answered your questions, time for you to answer some.

After 15 years, can you give one theory and outline how it supersedes inward bowing leading to vertical columns failures.

Just name one to start. CD, Thermite, Nukes, Lasers, Dustification.

Oh right so you are not willing to answer my question of if you believe David was able to use magic and transport a card from a deck into a orange then??

What a shame.... just highlighting the way in which you people work... only interested in the information you want and ignoring the rest... thank you for clarifying that for me,

Also your desperation to pin a theory on me so you can attempt to google how to defend against this or that is as transparent as is your lack of basic phyics comprehension.

And to answer your question, I do not have enough data to say how it was done, only I can say for certain that the collapse did not occur as the OS states it did, because it does not conform to how matter reacts... in our universe at least.

A bit like David Blaine's Card in the Orange Trick, wouldn't you say??

a reply to: Korg Trinity

You are the one that does not understand floor load ratings, sheared floor connections cannot transfer load to vertical columns, that mass was increasing as each floor collapsed into the next, and each floor gave way because the falling mass exceeded the load capacity for each floor.

a reply to: Korg Trinity
I'm taking it math isn't your strong suit lets look at a 1 kilogram weight being dropped from 417 meters. Do you remember earlier when I said it would take 9.23 seconds to hit the ground? Well we can also use this thing called math to tell us how much force it will hit with.In this case that would be se that 4086.60 joules. To make that easier for some to figure out the amount of force that would be roughly equivalent to a gram of TNT. A stick of tnt is roughly 100 grams meaning a 100 kilogram object hitting the ground has the equivalent force of a stick of TNT. And you still believe there isn't enough force stored to bring down a building? Oddly in physics your also fighting something else Gravity is a sustained force meaning its always there meaning even a shift in mass can cause massive instability as objects try to find there lowest energy state. With a shift in force on an object often leads to a breakdown of the entire system this is in essence a building collapse.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Korg Trinity

You are the one that does not understand floor load ratings, sheared floor connections cannot transfer load to vertical columns,

Clearly you do not understand Newtons Third Law of Motion... and how it relates.

Regardless of where the load bearing locations were, when the collapsing mass lands on top of the mass below, the mass below would exert an equivalent upward force equal to the resistance of the load bearing locations. That force would overcome the supports, but the energy equation needs to be balanced which would present itself as a reduction in the rate of collapse.

Simple terms the rate of collapse should have slowed down over time.... this is not what was observed and in fact the rate of collapse accelerated...

This is the founding point of why we know that the OS is incorrect.

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: Korg Trinity
I'm taking it math isn't your strong suit

If only you could know how much of a joke you just made

a reply to: Korg Trinity

Here is where you fall short. Especially unable or willing to answer questions directed to you.

You ongoing list.......

People have answered your questions, time for you to answer some.

After 15 years, can you give one theory and outline how it supersedes inward bowing leading to vertical columns failures.

Just name one to start. CD, Thermite, Nukes, Lasers, Dustification.

In your model, where is the breaking point for a 110 story building. If the building gave way so the top 54 floors fell onto the next lower floor, the 56 remaining floors would stop the collapse?

Did the witnessed collapse speed of the towers need CD.

For the false CD narrative.....

How the ignition system requiring precession timing survived the jet impacts which severed elevator and fire water header service. A ignition system able to corrrect for the inconsistencies in thermite burn times. As much as a 15 second variant in burn time per charge.

How the presence of a detonation system for hundreds of charges was robust enough to survive the fires, but not found in the hand search for evidence in the WTC debris.

Amazing that a never before CD of a high rise office building over fifty floors took place successfully twice in one day.

Amazing a never before top down demolition of a high rise office building successfully took place twice in one day.

Amazing inconsistent burning thermite was used for the first time successfully twice in one day for the first ever CD of buildings over 50 floors with a perfectly floor by floor top down sequence?

originally posted by: Korg Trinity

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Korg Trinity

You are the one that does not understand floor load ratings, sheared floor connections cannot transfer load to vertical columns,

Clearly you do not understand Newtons Third Law of Motion... and how it relates.

Regardless of where the load bearing locations were, when the collapsing mass lands on top of the mass below, the mass below would exert an equivalent upward force equal to the resistance of the load bearing locations. That force would overcome the supports, but the energy equation needs to be balanced which would present itself as a reduction in the rate of collapse.

Simple terms the rate of collapse should have slowed down over time.... this is not what was observed and in fact the rate of collapse accelerated...

This is the founding point of why we know that the OS is incorrect.

No it wouldn't your forgetting something big. But let me correct something first a building does not nor ever have upward force. A building reaches an equilibrium with gravity that's how it stays up. But what your forgetting is force and speed are interlinked and a building is not meant to handle anything but static force. The other factor a buildings resistance decreases as more force is applied. For example I can place a piece of steel in a press and it will actually explode. Why because the force is applied to a small area. So whenever you try to calculate stress of an object pounds of force on how much area becomes vitally important. One more thing by the time you see a building actually collapse any resistance the building has is almost completely gone. The major damage is done before the collapse occurs not during the collapse.

a reply to: Korg Trinity

Your growing list

Has no understand that individual floor load ratings are independent of building mass, but dependent on floor design and floor connection design. Using your logic..... A karate chop from a 150 pound person breaking three or four boards held by a four hundred pound person should be impossible.

Here is where you fall short. Especially unable or willing to answer questions directed to you.

You ongoing list.......

People have answered your questions, time for you to answer some.

After 15 years, can you give one theory and outline how it supersedes inward bowing leading to vertical columns failures.

Just name one to start. CD, Thermite, Nukes, Lasers, Dustification.

In your model, where is the breaking point for a 110 story building. If the building gave way so the top 54 floors fell onto the next lower floor, the 56 remaining floors would stop the collapse?

Did the witnessed collapse speed of the towers need CD.

For the false CD narrative.....

How the ignition system requiring precession timing survived the jet impacts which severed elevator and fire water header service. A ignition system able to corrrect for the inconsistencies in thermite burn times. As much as a 15 second variant in burn time per charge.

How the presence of a detonation system for hundreds of charges was robust enough to survive the fires, but not found in the hand search for evidence in the WTC debris.

Amazing that a never before CD of a high rise office building over fifty floors took place successfully twice in one day.

Amazing a never before top down demolition of a high rise office building successfully took place twice in one day.

Amazing inconsistent burning thermite was used for the first time successfully twice in one day for the first ever CD of buildings over 50 floors with a perfectly floor by floor top down sequence?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Korg Trinity

Here is where you fall short.

Thank you for your assessment... I perhaps will mention this at the next board meeting, I'm sure it will make a few sour faces chuckle.. something I have to say doesn't happen enough these days.

I've enjoyed running rings around you, but now you are just repeating your own words rather than engaging in conversation, which is a little sad.

If all you have to say is... Physics is wrong... and... I'm wrong because I wont line up with any of the theories you think you can debunk... then that in itself speaks volumes over your contained limited view on this and I suspect many other subjects...

Run along now then bye bye

Next!

originally posted by: Korg Trinity

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: Korg Trinity
I'm taking it math isn't your strong suit

If only you could know how much of a joke you just made

No joke if you claim there isn't enough force than I suggest you either redo your math because your wrong . So either you don't understand it or are incompetent choice is yours as to which one. But even engineers just starting out understand force and load. You actually stated the enegy for a building to collapse isn't there ??? So this magical building apparently floats and gravity has no effect. wow

originally posted by: dragonridr

No it wouldn't your forgetting something big.

Oh... Yes??

But let me correct something first a building does not nor ever have upward force.

I never said it did...

I said...

Regardless of where the load bearing locations were, when the collapsing mass lands on top of the mass below, the mass below would exert an equivalent upward force equal to the resistance of the load bearing locations.

But what your forgetting is

Yes yes??

force and speed are interlinked and a building is not meant to handle anything but static force.

Absolutely... I know... which is why I said...

That force would overcome the supports, but the energy equation needs to be balanced which would present itself as a reduction in the rate of collapse.

The energy of gravity is actually acting on a mass as an initiation of potential energy within a rest mass... this however does not negate Newtons Third Law of motion, and not even taking into account air resistance (we did btw) you simply can't collapse mass on top of another mass and not encounter resistance...

Do you see?

Korg.

originally posted by: dragonridr

No joke if you claim there isn't enough force than I suggest you either redo your math because your wrong .

Not wrong... and its a calculation that has been made and checked and recalculated many times by shall I say a rather sizable team.

The results of which have only just started to trickle through to the media now... you will probably start hearing about it more over the next six months for certain.

a reply to: Korg Trinity

Are you really that dumb when a mass falls on a floor slab were do you think the reation wotks through THE TRUSS SEAT and the BOLTS that hold it in place the MASS the truss seat is connected to cannot provide extra resistance PLAIN & SIMPLE how do I know I SOMETIMES test them to destruction as part of my JOB

a reply to: Korg Trinity

You are not running circles around anyone. Please show how individual floor span load ratings held aloft only at the very ends of the floor beams by floor to column connections is a function of building mass. Individual floor capacity is a function of the type and thickness floor beams and connections.

In fact, the strength of vertical columns is not really A function of mass. It's more of a function of type of material, how the material is treated, the thickness of the material, the design. If you need more strength you add thickness. Take two equal columns of mass and material. One colum is only 1x1 wide and x feet long. The other is 6 x 6 wide and shorter than x feet to make the masses equal. Masses being the same, which colum is going to support more load and strain as a vertical column.

a reply to: Korg Trinity

If you design a building who's floor load capacity exceeds the capacity of the vertical columns, you would be a pretty crappy engineer.

Not even going to answer this?

In your model, where is the breaking point for a 110 story building. If the building gave way so the top 54 floors fell onto the next lower floor, the 56 remaining floors would stop the collapse?

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: Korg Trinity

Are you really that dumb

Well now... there is always a bigger Fish.. you could do well to grasp that, it might mute your Ego a smidgen.

when a mass falls on a floor slab were do you think the reation wotks through THE TRUSS SEAT and the BOLTS that hold it in place the MASS the truss seat is connected to cannot provide extra resistance PLAIN & SIMPLE how do I know I SOMETIMES test them to destruction as part of my JOB

Good job you are not into construction, because if you think that a load bearing structure doesn't carry any resistance, nothing is going to stay up for very long now is it.... perhaps that's why you chose Destruction as a career choice??

Korg.

a reply to: Korg Trinity

Not even going to answer this?

In your model, where is the breaking point for a 110 story building. If the building gave way so the top 54 floors fell onto the next lower floor, the 56 remaining floors would stop the collapse?

a reply to: Korg Trinity

Another question you seem to ignore

After 15 years, can you give one theory and outline how it supersedes inward bowing leading to vertical columns failures.

CD explosives? CD Thermite? Nuke? Laser and Holograms? Dustification?

The evidence is so overwhelming you cannot pick a theory after 15 years?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Korg Trinity

If you design a building who's floor load capacity exceeds the capacity of the vertical columns, you would be a pretty crappy engineer.

Absolutely, but again I never suggested this was the case.

In fact, most safety margins are around 20% load additional to the max load capacity of the load bearing linkages. Standard practice in many fields not just building construction I might add, though the percentile margins will vary.

In your model, where is the breaking point for a 110 story building. If the building gave way so the top 54 floors fell onto the next lower floor, the 56 remaining floors would stop the collapse?

I do not have that calculation to hand, but the equation would include but not be restricted to, the total number of floors, the total mass of the building and its distribution, the speed of the collapsing material and direction of collapse, the load limits of all bearing structures, all within a gravitational field of 1g.

However I can simplify it for you, and for that matter me too..

The floor where the collapse could occur and reach totality would be the point where the resistance from all the floors below would be unable to overcome the mass of the floors collapsing onto them.

But I do absolutely want to highlight that even at that point Newtons Third Law of Motion applies, and still the rate of collapse would experience a deceleration....

Remember... What was observed was an actual acceleration in the rate of Collapse....

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Korg Trinity

Another question you seem to ignore

After 15 years, can you give one theory and outline how it supersedes inward bowing leading to vertical columns failures.

CD explosives? CD Thermite? Nuke? Laser and Holograms? Dustification?

The evidence is so overwhelming you cannot pick a theory after 15 years?

I haven't ignored it, I've answered you several times now on this same question... let me break it down into small peaces for you.

1. I do not have enough information to say for certain what was actual cause.

2. I do have enough information to state that the OS does not offer an adequate or even partial answer either.

3. I will not stand in one of your neat predefined theory boxes so you can google how to defend against this or that

4. The information I relay here will not be wrong.

Korg.